Jewellery making and the delight of creating
and wearing: some lessons to be learned for
interaction design
Jettie Hoonhout
Philips Research Laboratories
High Tech Campus 34, 5656AE Eindhoven, the Netherlands
[email protected]
In this paper, two seemingly diverse activities are compared to look for commonalities and
differences, with the objective to see if there are elements in one activity that might be useful to
adopt in the other activity. Focus of this comparison is in particular on elements related to
creativity and inspiration. Also, the way the end-result of either activity relates to an intended
beneficiary or target group is considered.
Jewellery making, craft, creativity, inspiration, interaction design, UCD.
helped me to think about this in more depth, and
articulate this in a more systematic way.
In the remainder of this paper, I will first briefly
describe some key characteristics of my UCD work,
using one particular case as an example. Next I will
present a number of jewellery projects, again to
highlight some key characteristics in how I
approach such projects. Next I will present a
number of commonalities and differences I have
observed, and discuss some of the implications. I
will end with an attempt to answer a number of
questions around how arts (and craft) in my view
can contribute to interaction design.
1. INTRODUCTION
This paper is about two different activities that I am
passionate about. These are seemingly quite
unrelated activities; however, for me both have
certain characteristics in common that are attractive
to me: exploration and experimentation, inviting
curiosity, discoveries and unexpected outcomes,
challenges, and rewarding (tangible) end-results.
However, to the outside world, both activities
probably have little in common, even when perhaps
acknowledging the similarities in appeal.
This is a personal story. I am a human factors
psychologist, a researcher, working on consumer
electronics products, ranging from lighting,
entertainment systems, and games to kitchen
appliances (see for some examples Aarts &
Diederiks, 2006; Hoonhout, 2007). But I am also a
hobby jeweller, a pastime goldsmith (see for
examples
of
my
work
http://www.pascaldecaluwe.nl/Mijn_albums/Pagina
s/masterclass.html ).
And as stated above, for me, these two activities
are not unrelated: both call for skill and curiosity,
invite exploration, and provide fulfilment in the
process, and more. Also, I strongly believe in
learning from other disciplines, from diverging
activities, and from different settings and
experiences. So, even if to the outside world these
are seemingly unrelated activities, for me engaging
in both activities has much in common, and I think
that engaging in both activities is mutually
beneficial in some way. Writing this paper has
2. MY DAYTIME JOB: EXAMPLE FROM UCD
WORK
The AmbiLight™ TV has lighting units mounted on
the frame of the TV set. These lighting units
produce lighting effects around the TV set that
match the colour settings of whatever is shown on
the display, resulting in an enlarged and enhanced
viewing experience (see figure 1; more background
on the development of this product in Diederiks and
Hoonhout, 2007). This product was one of the
outcomes of a project in which members from a
Research department of Philips and one of Philips'
product divisions, Philips Lighting, were closely
working together. This resulted in a diverse and
interesting mix of professional disciplines and
experiences, stimulating a lively exchange and
debate. The project team was given a rather broad
assignment – come up with innovative applications
1
Jewellery and interaction design
Hoonhout
of lighting for the home domain that will support
people in their daily activities in novel ways. The
project team aimed to go for a 'cross-over' of
domains, i.e. looking for application of lighting
technology in new fields. In addition, a user-centric
innovation process was adopted (Diederiks and
Hoonhout, 2007; Hoonhout, 2007). The process
included an ideation workshop using as a starting
point the outcomes of a series of contextual studies
on how people live at home, and what their worries
and dreams are, and existing ideas for lighting
applications that were found, e.g. in literature. The
ideation workshop resulted in a large pool of ideas
ranging from marbles as lighting controls to
adaptive lighting furniture. Subsequently, these
ideas were analyzed with input from trend studies,
user studies, and technology outlooks. The most
promising ideas were worked out as scenarios. The
scenarios were discussed with potential end-users
as well as technical and business experts. These
evaluation sessions resulted in specific feedback
on the different ideas (see Diederiks and Hoonhout,
2007, for more details). The feedback collected in
the evaluation was the basis of the selection of
those ideas that appeared to have the strongest
potential. These were worked out in detailed
prototypes for further evaluation with users in order
to determine the appeal of the concepts and to
collect possible further improvements of the ideas.
The test results showed that one of the concepts
that were considered to be very appealing was the
AmbiLight concept.
some ‘usage requirements’ – not too heavy,
dangling, silver. Some sketches were made and
discussed with the friend who found the sketches
(in 2D) difficult to visualize, so a part mock-up in
paper and aluminium was then created and
discussed. A brief ‘use test’ was conducted a
couple of days prior to the occasion. Atypical for a
UCD process was that this was a unique object,
personalized for just the one user, and designed
with a personalized ‘narrative’ for this user in mind.
Figure 2. Earrings (©Jettie Hoonhout)
In another project, I set myself an assignment, a
‘problem to be solved’. I wanted to create a ring,
made of silver and marble shaped glass, but with
the possibility to easily change marbles. I explored
different ideas how this could be done, using
drawings and paper mock-ups in the initial steps in
the process. The paper mock-ups of a ring, and
paper ‘balls’ let to an idea to use the finger and the
silver band of the ring as ‘holders’ of the marble.
Later, when working out this idea in metal, I
discovered of course that paper is much more
malleable than silver is, so I had to work out a
solution to make it work in metal. Another possible
issue was that the construction could result in great
discomfort while wearing – so this was tested with
a test model in aluminium. Tools normally used
when making rings, e.g. for sizing and shaping, did
not work in this case, so, this resulted in more trial
and experimentation. The end result was quite
different from the first sketches and drawings, and
also quite different from the first mock-ups, but now
associated with many personal stories and
memories. It also turned out to be a piece that
draws out a lot of comments from people, so a true
conversation starter.
Figure 1. Ambilight TV
Key elements in this case were: interdisciplinary
work (engineers, designers, marketing specialists,
and psychologists), exploring new technologies, or
probing for applications of existing technologies in
new domains, and continuously involving
consumers/users throughout the process in one
way or another, in a generally systematic way.
3. WHAT I DO AFTER OFFICE HOURS: SOME
EXAMPLES FROM METAL WORK
Figure 3. Ring with changeable marbles (© Jettie
Hoonhout)
In creating the earrings shown in figure 2, I adopted
partly a ‘conventional’ UCD process. First, the
setting in which the pair of earrings was to be
‘used’ was analyzed, and the requirements were
determined: these earrings were to be worn by a
friend at a particular occasion; they had to match
the dress (in colour and form) that would be worn
by her at that occasion, and also the friend had
<< pictures to be added later >>
Figure 4. Paper mock-up and aluminium prototype of
ring with changeable marbles
2
Jewellery and interaction design
Hoonhout
Some key elements in these activities are: skill
development – getting to learn new techniques and
getting better at them; I love the tools used in this
domain, some have a long history; it provides a
good balance between physical skills and cognitive
skills; it invites exploration of materials and forms,
and so on; and it is about making something that is
actually being used and worn, with a story behind
it. Attractive is also the mix of technologies (metal
work, glass, porcelain, etc), exploring new methods
and techniques, working on something for a user
one knows, creating tailor-made designs.
•
•
4. “MY” JEWELLERY MAKING PROCESS
VERSUS A TYPICAL UCD PROCESS
When comparing the process I adopt in jewellery
making (which appears to be not that different from
how this is generally done, see e.g. Kettley, 2007),
with a typical UCD process, I note the following
observations and questions:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Trial and experimentation (with errors
sometimes resulting in new ideas or
inspiration or even a change of focus)
seems to be the most common approach in
arts/crafts. It could be seen as researching
by doing, making and experimenting,
adopting an empirical approach, but often
not using simulations, dummies or proxies,
but the actual materials, resulting in
different feedback, different processes, and
more immediate learning.
Jewellery making is not about the resulting
object in itself or in isolation, but very much
about wearing it, using it, and how the
object interacts with the body, and how the
wearer interacts and plays with the object. It
is much more sensual.
It is clear to me that my research training has
influenced my jewellery making process –
experimentation, a bit of systematic exploration,
researching background stories on techniques and
tools. But does my jewellery making process
influence my research work? I believe so, although
the influences seem less pronounced: I am now
more inclined to draw, make paper prototypes,
think more about the user as a creator, or active
user, rather than as a mere (passive) consumer. I
have also come to appreciate that it is not all about
testing and user research (although that is an
element); it is also about the magic of the materials,
the shape, and the design; about skill and personal
judgment of the designer.
Jewellery making is more personal than my
“other” work, more subjective, more
intimate.
Jewellery making is probably more a craft
than an art (at least in the way how I
approach it; there are other views about
jewellery making, see e.g. various blogs on
the Art Jewelry Forum); can research be
considered (partly) as a craft, or UCD and
interaction design work? And what does
that imply?
Jewellery making involves much more
mastering physical skills than research and
UCD work do; in fact, it is very much about
craftsmanship, about skilfully manipulating
tools and materials. In contrast, knowledge
and (broad) experience seems to have a
much bigger impact on the quality of the
end result of research and UCD
endeavours than in the case of jewellery
making.
Interaction design and UCD work is ‘design
for many’, often even ‘anonymous many’
(even personas are actually anonymous!);
jewellery making as a craft is often much
more tailor-made, involving design of one of
its kind.
Jewellery making could in a way be seen as
user centred design, but with a twist – it is
not about the functionality of the object,
unless one considers ‘ornamentation’ as a
function, but wearability can definitely be an
issue to be considered.
‘Technology push’, i.e., starting from some
materials or technique, rather than from a
user need seems more common and
approved of in arts/crafts, resulting in a
different creative process.
4.1. Some thoughts for interaction design and
research
•
•
3
Usability in jewellery is not a primary issue
(well, wearability is to some extent),
emotion is definitely an issue! Personally
made, the dedication in it, the hours of
work, means that more memories are
attached to it for the creator. Humour and
playfulness are definitely things to consider,
as is a narrative to creator and wearer.
Meaning is often purposefully attached to
the piece. This is definitely something that
would be good to consider for UCD as well.
It is about the story behind it, the narrative
is important.
Good to realize also that a jewellery object
is not just for useful purposes, but also for
ornamentation, although that still means
that it should be designed with the wearer
(and the setting in which it will be worn) in
mind. Visceral, sensual appeal plays a
prime role. As does interaction with the
body/person. Allowing interaction with the
body (a specific body?) is much more a key
element, much more a focus in the design
process (the body-object should look good
Jewellery and interaction design
Hoonhout
•
•
•
•
•
and work together) than in interaction
design.
Jewellery is time and place bound. It is
important to understand culture/society over
time and how that influences product
preferences and designs. Like with design
of products and interactions, in real life, of
course, ornaments are not isolated from
other artefacts, and even less from the rich
and
complex
social
and
cultural
associations.
In jewellery making the ‘problem’ is often
self assigned/created (how to replace a
marble; role of body parts; how does this
technique work) whereas in UCD a problem
is usually assigned by others, an
organization, etc.
Documentation is different, probably more
systematic in interaction design.
The role of inspiration and creativity seems
different, perhaps more loaded in arts and
craft work. Originality is more important,
“copying” ideas is seen as less acceptable
than in UCD? (“Better well copied (and
referenced) than poorly designed”).
Users should be allowed to play a much
more active part in the creation of their
object-person interaction, for example by
giving them the means to co-create a
narrative around the object. Certain HCI
objects are already like jewellery (or
ornaments), e.g. mobile phones (McCarthy
et al, 2005).
appearance, movement and interaction with the
body, letting “music” or sound be an element in the
design, playing with 3D and light and shadows,
tangible aspects, touch, connections between
objects and the wearer’s experience of using and
wearing the pieces, etc.
5. DISCUSSION
A number of questions around how arts (and craft)
can contribute to interaction design have been
posed. Beyond the discussion if jewellery making is
art, craft, or just product development (see Kettley,
2007, and Wallace et al., 2007, and the blog on the
Art Jewelry Forum, for discussions on that), here
are some first thoughts on these questions and
themes, taking also into account the discussion in
the previous sections:
Q: How can the arts contribute to interaction design
and creativity research?
In my view, the arts are also about making people
think, think deeper; apart from making something
skilful or beautiful, also something that will make
people think; I think these are valuable elements in
any product, so that is what interaction design
could learn (see also paper by Jayne Wallace)
Art is perhaps even more so than products are,
about the story around the object; not just the
aesthetics or the sensorial experience, but the
emotion attached to it, making a piece emotionally
meaningful, go beyond the functional/informational.
Art can point out different starting points for
inspiration and creativity processes, see the
previous section for some ideas on that.
4.2. Where does the inspiration come from?
Differences appear to also exist in where ideas
come from.
Q: What are the major strategies and
methodologies in the arts that can be used for
interaction design and creativity research?
Combine new materials in designs, re-use old
techniques and materials in new ways (e.g. crochet
in metal work). Technology push in that sense
seems to work quite ok.
In addition, sustainability, the use of precious
metals, and reusing those materials, or finding
alternatives is a key topic that is also interesting for
interaction design and HCI.
Furthermore, the value of objects (intrinsic, versus
assigned; past (monetary) and current), the
meaning of objects, in general and to its wearer,
are much more often focus of attention in arts/craft
than in HCI. (See e.g. Art Jewelry Forum, Unger-de
Boer, 2010).
Arts and crafts often aim to make a statement, to
play with identity. However, identity also plays
already a role in certain digital objects, e.g. mobile
phones are a nice example (see also McCarthy at
al., 2005): “tell me what your mobile phone (use) is,
and I tell you who you are”? There is a certain lure
in this, so UCD and interaction design may want to
further explore this.
First, technologies that one reads about, or hears
about can be a starting point; wanting to try these
out, and then an object comes out of that process.
Or one wants to explore certain tools or materials,
trying to understand the process by which things
are made.
Inspiration can also come from a fascination with
certain shapes or possibilities (e.g. round shapes),
which are then explored for a while to see what is
possible with those shapes.
Of course, other people’s work can be a source of
inspiration, not to copy (that would hardly be
inspiration), but to understand how others look at
the world, at materials, forms, etc, and how they
translate that into concepts. Also, other arts/craft
domains can be a source of inspiration.
Interestingly enough, inspiration can also come
from certain boundaries one imposes upon oneself:
for example, not wanting to work with clear animal
shapes, although abstract organic might still be
fine; minimalism in forms, colours, etc; or certain
assignments, like allowing to change the
4
Jewellery and interaction design
Hoonhout
8. REFERENCES
Q: How do we make the arts more accessible in
interaction design without diluting or distorting it?
Why would one be afraid of diluting or distorting,
and what would one be diluting or distorting? Arts
and/or interaction design?? And how bad is that
really? If you want to make connections between
the two, both will have to give in a bit! And
something nice, new and interesting is bound to
result from that.
Aarts, E. and Diederiks, E., (2006), Ambient Lifestyle.
From Concept to Experience, BIS Publishers,
Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Art Jewelry Forum, blog,
http://www.artjewelryforum.org/blog/ website visited 10
June 2011.
De Caluwe, Pascal. 2011. Atelier Sint Michael,
Masterclass albums,
http://www.pascaldecaluwe.nl/Mijn_albums/Paginas/m
asterclass.html website visited 10 June 2011.
Diederiks, E. and Hoonhout, H.C.M., (2007), Radical
innovation and end-user involvement: the Ambilight
case. Journal of Knowledge, Technology & Policy,
20(1), 31-38.
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Wikipedia provides the following definition of
Jewellery design: “this falls under the category of
what is commonly known as "functional art", i.e., art
that
can
be
worn
or
used”,
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewelry_design ). That
seems like a pretty good starting point for
interaction design and HCI as well. Both jewellery
making and interaction design can be seen as a
journey, as an exploration of new territory, fuelled
by curiosity and (sometimes) by a ‘mission’ or
assignment.
These
journeys
will
involve
experiments, investigations, probing, questioning
and making connections between technologies,
users and their needs and dreams, and skills. So,
elements in common, which should not make it too
hard to find and apply some insights and ideas for
inspiration.
Hoonhout, H.C.M.( 2007). Setting the stage for
developing innovative product concepts: people
and climate. CoDesign - International Journal of
CoCreation in Design and the Arts, Volume 3
supplement 1, 19-34.
Kettley, S., (2007), Crafts praxis for critical
wearables design, AI and Society, 22, 5-14.
McCarthy, J., Wright, P., Wallace, J., and Dearden,
A.M. (2005). The experience of enchantment in
human-computer interaction, Personal and
ubiquitous computing, 10(6), 369-378.
Unger-de Boer, M., (2010). Sieraad in context. Een
multidisciplinair kader voor de beschouwing van
het sieraad. PhD thesis, Department of Art
History, Faculty of Humanities, Leiden
University, the Netherlands.
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/15121
website accessed on 10 June 2011.
Wallace, J., Dearden, A.M., Fisher, T. (2007). The
significant other. The value of jewellery within
the conception, design and experience of body
focused digital devices, AI & Society, 22, 53-62.
Wikipedia, on Jewelry design,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewelry_design, website
visited 10 June 2011.
7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Pascal de Caluwe for sharing
his wonderful studio and his expert guidance into
the delight of goldsmithing. Furthermore, I would
like to thank Jon Mason for his valuable comments
on earlier versions of this paper. Finally, I would
like to thank Ann Light for making me think in a
more systematic way about the connections
between two activities that I love to do by urging
me to write this paper.
5